A Question about the Poisson distributed of random variable

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between Poisson processes and the probabilities of events occurring within specified intervals. It clarifies that the notation used, particularly the terms like \(N_1\), \(N_3\), and \(N_4\), represents the number of events in certain time intervals, specifically \(N[0,1]\), \(N[1,4]\), and \(N[0,4]\). The equivalence \(P(N_4 - N_1 = 4) = P(N_3 = 4)\) is justified by the memoryless property of Poisson processes, which states that the number of events in non-overlapping intervals is independent. The discussion also emphasizes the need for clear notation to avoid confusion in understanding these relationships. Overall, the conversation highlights the importance of proper definitions and notation in probability theory related to Poisson processes.
user366312
Gold Member
Messages
88
Reaction score
3
The following is related to Poisson process:

$$P(N_1=2, N_4=6) = P(N_1=2, N_4-N_1=4) = P(N_1=2) \cdot P(N_3=4)$$

Why is $$(N_3=4)=(N_4-N_1=4)$$?

Can anyone explain?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I can guess that the answer is memorylessness -- in fact ##(N_3=4)=(N_4-N_1=4)## screams exactly that even though I don't know what these symbols stand for.

To say much more requires you to define some of the symbols you are throwing around and provide some background.
 
There is not much background. A lambda value is given and I have to find the value of $$P(N_1=2, N_4=6)$$.

What I understand is:

1. $$P(N_1=2, N_4=6)$$ means "the probability of count of 2 items arriving at step-1, AND 6 items arriving at step-4.

2. $$P(N_1=2, N_4-N_1=4)$$ means that "the probability of count of 2 items arriving at step-1 AND the 4 items as the difference of steps 4 and 1.

3. which is same as $$P(N_1=2, N_3=4)$$ i.e. "the probability of count of 2 items at step-1 AND 4 items at step-3".

I understand (2) as (1) is represented as a "difference" term in (2).

But, how is (2) and (3) equivalent?
 
'step' isn't exactly standard terminology for continuous time processes like a Poisson and it is also ambiguous as to how they 'steps' overlap or don't. So I am once again guessing.

My guess is step one is ##(0, t]##, step two is ##(0, 2t]##, step 3 is ##(0, 3t]## and step 4 is ##(0,4t]##

So first things first, simplify and show

##P(N_4 - N_1) = P(N_3)##
i.e. Pr ##k## arivals in ##(t, 4t]## is same as in ## (0, 3t]## -- why is this true? memorylessness (see stationary and independent increments). A slick way to see this is to look at the renewal function ##m(t)## which is linear for Poisson processes and in general uniquely characterizes a renewal process (at all points of continuity). There are more direct routes -- one way or another you need to get your arms around memorylessness.

- - - - -
now consider ##P(N_1, N_4 - N_1) = P(N_1, N_3)##
This doesn't hold given my guess of your term 'step'.

consider

##k = \lceil 1000000 \lambda \rceil##
(or insert some other natural number that is much larger than ##\lambda##)

and ##r \geq k##

##P(N_1 =k , N_4 - N_1 \geq r) = P(N_1 =k) P( N_4 - N_1\geq r \big \vert N_1=k) ##
##\neq P(N_1=k) P( N_3\geq r\big \vert N_1=k) = P(N_1=k, N_3\geq r)##

why? because if we divide out ##P(N_1 = k)##
we have
##\epsilon \lt 1##
where ## \epsilon## may be made arbitrarily small (and in any case it is certainly ##\lt 1##).

(note if you don't like e.g.,
##P(N_1 =k , N_4 - N_1 \geq r) ##
then consider

##P(N_1 =k , N_4 - N_1 \geq r) = \sum_{i=r}^\infty P(N_1 =k , N_4 - N_1 = i) ##
so we can look at point wise bounds and sum over the bound to recover the above inequality.

- - - - -

note: I saw you were having trouble LaTeX -- as you've discovered double dollars works here but single dollars don't -- you can enclose with double hashtags instead of single dollars though
 
user366312 said:
The following is related to Poisson process:

$$P(N_1=2, N_4=6) = P(N_1=2, N_4-N_1=4) = P(N_1=2) \cdot P(N_3=4)$$

Why is $$(N_3=4)=(N_4-N_1=4)$$?

Can anyone explain?
There are different types of "1,2,3,..." here, but you are confusing them because of inadequate notation. Presumably, your ##N_a## means N[0,a] = number of events in the interval ##0 \leq t \leq a.## More generally, let us write ##P(N[a,b] = k)## for the probability of ##k## events in the interval ##a \leq t \leq b.##

So, what you meant to write at the start (in full notation) is
$$P(N[0,1]=2, N[0,4]=6) = P(N[0,1]=2, N[0,4]-N[0,1] = 4)
\\= P(N[0,1]=2) P([N[1,4] = 4).$$ If you use a shorthand notation (but without explanation) you could write this last factor as ##P(N[1,4]=4) = P(N_3=4),## where here ##P(N_b = k)## means the probability of ##k## events in an interval of length ##b##, with un-specified starting and ending points. So your ##N_3## is not the same as ##N[0,3]##, but it is the same as ##N[1,4].##
 
Last edited:
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
30
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top